The recent events in Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan can hardly be called "spontaneous demonstration of the society's resentment"
This is highly likely the concern of present-day political forces with respect to these countries. The events require to be considered in a wider historical aspect.
In any epoch empires appeared in different parts of the world to subdue vast territories. However, none of the empires was ever a true world power able to dictate its will to the whole of the mankind. History does not know precedents of universal hegemony of any particular country. Such hegemony could not set in because of technical imperfection and poor communication facilities to deliver information from one part of an empire to the other. The 20th century brought technical progress and developed communications which made the world narrower. Today it will take us just few hours to get from one part of the world to some other in a plane. So, Moscow is now as close to Paris as to any other Russian city. Information about most important events spreads about the planet for a couple of seconds. In other words, mankind looks more like an indivisible civilization from the communication point of view.
A structure at the head of the united human civilization is to determine the future world order. It is the current historical period that is to decide if the role will be performed by the UN, the EU or the US. The US, being the only super-power stands a better chance to become "the world director". Indeed, by the beginning of the 21st century the US has become the only subject that can set and realize long-term global objectives. No matter if we speak about the breakup of the USSR, of control over the Middle East or South America, leaders of none of the world powers have enough resources to perform a determinant role in development of the regions. It is important that America has every prospect of success in becoming the only and the last, as American political scientist Zbignev Brzezinski says, true world empire.
In the nearest future, the policy of the US will be certainly aimed at liquidation of rivals for getting the world director position. There are several rivals today: China, united Europe, Russia (together with the CIS) and even the united Arab world. The events that have happened in Iraq, Georgia, Yugoslavia and so on within the past years should be considered from this particular point of view. Ukraine is not an exception here as well.
As for Europe, the recent events in Iraq have demonstrated that it is the least dangerous formation of the above mentioned ones. When Washington decided it was necessary, Europe split. Today, EU integration processes pose no danger to America's interests; what is more, the processes will be as deep as the US allows them to be. On the other hand, Europe is not a monolith but still remains the center of attraction for former Soviet republics and Eastern European countries; this in its turn does not allow them to become closer with Russia.
From the economic, political and cultural points of view, Russia is the only country that can follow a stable and to some extent independent foreign political line. As compared with China, Russia is unfortunately a weaker country that makes it a number one target for Washington's policy.
It will be impossible to destroy China without breaking Russia. Zbignev Brzezinski voiced his thesis saying that Russia could not develop and would in the future fall out into sovereign republics. Many doings of the US Administration, such as political support to separatism and terrorism in Chechnya, agree with the concept.
Definitely, the US needs Ukraine to oppose Russia. It depends upon the situation what the opposition will look like. For example, Ukraine may be used to lay claims to Russia as concerning the territory of the former Soviet republic; export of Russian energy resources to Europe may be hampered on the territory of Ukraine; finally, the situation in Ukraine can be destabilized to set much stronger tension on the Russian Federation borders.
The US may choose to strengthen Russia or to split it into parts by causing tension in Crimea or Donbass. Today, probably America itself has no clear idea of its long-term plans concerning Ukraine.
There are lots of opinions concerning attempts of organizing a coup d’etat in Georgia, Serbia, similar plans in Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Many people believe that main objective of the US policy in these countries is to gain control over oil fields, the Strait of Kerch (Ukraine) or more war orders from these countries in the future, and so on. However, these are rather primitive opinions in fact; the US pursues greater interests than oil and war orders. Main objective of the US policy is to create such global conditions under which the US could unconditionally get oil and other resources of the world economy. At that, it sounds partially true when America states it will create democracy in Iraq because the policy of democratic Iraq can be easier controlled.
In any case, Americans will not object to expansion of US's hegemony which in its turn allows America draw financial, natural and human dividends from Ukraine.
The US has come across two serious problems while realization of the global policy. First of all, the world communitygradually realizes the threat of monopoly for the global role and many countries try to carry out their independent policies. Second, processes may become uncontrollable if remaking of the world goes too fast. For example, fast collapse of the Russian Federation would result in expansion of weapons of mass destruction all over the planet. This fact partially explains why the breakup of the USSR was not final and why no definitive blow has been delivered against Russia.
Breakdown of the Russian Federation requires preliminary preparation: it is necessary to liquidate weapons of mass destruction and secure safe rear in the CIS. Ukraine is a key country for realization of the second objective. However, nationalists need to understand that a great part of today's Ukraine is the territory of Russian culture, which in its turn will pose problems to realization of Washington's plans. Democratization of Ukraine first of all requires that the whole of its territory must be made purely Ukrainian. For the time being, the issue is worked upon (pupils in Ukraine can hardly write in Russian).
When it was first decided to change the order in Ukraine, it was believed that Russia's ruling elite would not stand up against plans of Washington; Moscow authority was expected to care more about future elections rather than about generations to come. But the ruling elites in Moscow have changed, and Moscow today can exert greater pressure upon political lines of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. As a result, the situation may become extremely unstable if the Russian culture is rejected and interests of the Russian population are ignored in Ukraine.
In any case, as well as the process of WMD liquidation, liquidation of the Russian culture in the former Soviet republics will take much time. It is unlikely that resolute measures may be taken within the nearest 15-20 years to break the Russian Federation down. Within this period, the US foreign policy will be focused upon prevention of Russia's strengthening and maintenance of instability in the Russian Federation and other CIS countries.